Wednesday, October 31, 2012

This is what Chinese communism looks like. Mixing in state capitalism a combination of private enterprise. With a large welfare state, to go along with some state owned enterprises. And a lack of the social freedom compared with Japan, Korea, Australia and the West. China had figured out whether they like capitalism or not, it's necessary to have it for their country, especially their regime to be as strong as possible. So they can say to their people that personal freedom and choice, is very limited. But at least we can survive as a country economically and see hundreds of millions of Chinese do very well. And keep the status-quoe as far as the party in power. And not need to open up our political system and allow for more personal freedom. Because their people will they're doing well economically with the system and be able to raise their kids, get an education and live well. And see China do very well compared with the world and even developed world. This is their gamble at least so far and so far it's been paying off very well for them. Cuba is trying the same thing with their communist republic as well.

Medicare Reform I believe if fairly easy as far as what can be done to fix it, the costs of the program are going. Up faster then we'll afford to cover them in the future, so to counter that we need to cut those increases in costs. Sounds easy and more difficult to accomplish it but the solutions to fix this problem are fairly simple and doing simple things like requiring the wealthy to may more for their Medicare coverage. Or allowing people who aren't eligible for Medicare and won't be eligible for Medicare for a while, people who. Are Gen Xers such as myself an Millenials, people born after 1960 to opt out of Medicare and to purchase other Health Insurance. With the money that would've been spent to cover their Medicare or allowing non seniors to pay into Medicare for their Health Insurance, would bring down the costs of. Medicare because healthier people would be part of the system and Medicare wouldn't have to cover as many people.

The problems I see with Medicare are political, once you start talking about reforming Medicare, whether you. Are a Democrat or a Republican, you get accused by the other side of either hurting or trying to destroy Medicare. We saw this during the Healthcare Reform debate of 2009-10 and we are seeing that now with how Democrats are responding to the Romney/Ryan Medicare Reform plan. And Romney/Ryan being accused to trying to end Medicare but the solutions to reforming Medicare are fairly simple and easy. As far as what can be done to fix the program.

I don't see Randianism as a cult, but the inspirational leader for American libertarianism. Even though Ayn Rand wasn't an official Libertarian. Just like John F. Kennedy is the inspirational leader for Liberals such as myself and Ronald Reagan is the inspirational leader of Conservatives. And Franklin Roosevelt in an inspirational Leader for Progressives. Now, some of the followers of Ayn Rand at times do seem like cult followers with some of their conspiracy theories that government is out to get them and that type of thing. But the movement by itself I don't see as some type of cult.

Ayn Rand objectivism, is that the individual should always be that. "That the individual is always first. And when people start concerning themselves with the affairs and worries of others, than somehow collectivism would sink in." Again, Ayn Rand, is not a Libertarian. Even Libertarians believe in private charity. And some Conservative Libertarians, even though they wouldn't have created the New Deal, or Great Society, aren't looking to eliminate it. For practical reasons mostly, but would like to see it run a lot better with private options for people who receive social services.

So when you talk about Ayn Rand and objectivism, you shouldn't try to link it with libertarianism, or conservatism. Even though so-called Progressives and Socialists will aways do that. Because libertarianism and objectivism are two different things. Libertarians, believe in a minimal government, at least classical Libertarians. And that the safety net and charity should only be run by the private sector and with no government involvement. Objectivists, aren't even fans of private charity. And that individuals should always be left to solve their own problems.

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

We have too many people in prison in America for several reasons, we arrest too many people, we have. Too many bad laws, we arrest people who aren't threats to society and arrest them for things that shouldn't be illegal. The War on Drugs is an excellent example of that and lose too many people in our Education System, young people who turn to crime to simply make a living in America. We simply aren't educating enough people in the United States and giving them a good enough education. So they can get themselves the skills that they need to be successful in life and not have to victimize innocent people and end up in prison. And the people we do arrest that need to be in prison for the good of society, we don't prepare them in prison for life on the outside. So they have the skills that they need to be successful in life and not have to go back to crime. In order to support themselves financially.

California is an excellent example of this but the good news is that it doesn't have to be this way. We can fix our Corrections System by fixing our Education System so we don't lose as many students to crime each year. And by repealing a lot of our bad laws, as they result to the War on Drugs, gambling and even prostitution and instead regulate and tax these activities and use that. Money to fund things that we actually need in this country, as well as preparing our inmates for life. On the outside with work and education, so they have the skills that they need to make it on the outside.

Here's a perfect example of why Libertarians should vote for the candidate they want, instead of what they would see as the lesser of two evils. Because if enough Libertarians vote for Gary Johnson for president, whether they are part of the Libertarian Party, Republican, Democrat or Independent, Libertarians if Gary Johnson were to get that magic 5% number, something that the Green Party's Jill Stein is going for with the Green Party, then the LP will have the resources to be able to compete in 2016, maybe double their 5%.

And then the LP could be a serious factor in determining who wins the 2016 presidential election. Something they aren't right now for the most part. Maybe Governor Johnson pulls votes away from President Obama in places like Nevada, New Mexico and perhaps Florida. We'll wait and see, because he's someone who appeals more to Liberals than Conservatives. I'm a example of that as a Liberal, because Governor Johnson to me sounds more Liberal in the classic sense, than he does Conservative and perhaps even Libertarian. Gary sounds like a Left-Libertarian or Social-Liberal to me. Than a Ron Paul hard-core Libertarian.

If Gary Johnson were to break through in 2012 and get that 5%, the LP will have the resources to build their party for the future. And become a real factor in American politics and perhaps become the official third-party in America. Big enough to compete with Democrats and Republicans in the future. But that doesn't happen as long as Libertarians vote for what they see as the lesser of two evils or don't bother voting at all. Libertarians should turn out and vote for exactly who represents them, even if that candidate has no shot at winning. To be able to build their own party that can actually win.

I'm sure at one point that the Christian Right was worried about Communism and the threat that it pose to America. But mainly that Communism tends to be secular and anti religion all together and even bans religion from being practiced in countries that it governs and clamps down on religion all together. Cuba and China being excellent examples of that but Communism is not the main issue that Christian Conservatives. Are worried about, they are worried about two main issues, Fundamentalist Islam and Fundamentalist Muslims trying to impose their religious views on Americans and its not that they are trying. To impose religious views on America that bothers Christian Conservatives, because Christian Conservatives. Have been trying to impose their religious views on Americans since the 1970s, its the fact that Fundamentalist Muslims are trying to impose Islamic views on America that concerns. Christian Conservatives, its Islam that worries Christian Conservatives not Theocracy by itself.

The other thing that worries Christian Conservatives and we saw this with Rick Santourm's and Michelle Bachmann's. Presidential Campaigns, is what they see as immoral behavior, homosexuality and pornography, what Americans do in the privacy of their own homes that concerns Christian Conservatives. And other activities that Christian Conservatives believe should be outlawed in America and they believe that. Once these activities are outlawed in America, then we will be able to end what they see and what Alan Keyes calls a "Moral Crisis", that they see as the biggest threat to America.

Monday, October 29, 2012

What America, Canada, Britain, Europe and Australia have figured out and agree on, is that freedom and. Capitalism works, we differ in what type of Democracy and Capitalism that we should have, America having the most Private of Enterprise Systems, we tax the less and are the less regulated. And I would argue that we have the most Liberal System when it comes to Social Freedom as well, especially. As it relates to Free Speech but all of these countries have decided that freedom and Capitalism works and its just a matter of how much of it we should have. All of these countries have Liberals, we all have Conservatives and we all have lets say Progressives or Democratic Socialists. And we have people who are further to the left and right of all of these political factions but we've all decided that freedom and Capitalism works and its just a matter of how much that. Individuals should have and how much we can handle for ourselves.

As a Liberal I believe the people should have the freedom to live their own lives and be as successful. As they possibly can, based on what they contribute to society and that we should then be taxed based on our ability to pay but not to the point that it hurt or discourages peoples ability. To be successful and productive and that we should have the freedom to live our own lives, as long as we aren't hurting innocent people with what we are doing. People much further to the left or right of me, however you want to label them who aren't Liberals, the idea of Individual Freedom. Is a dangerous concept that if we have so much of it, people won't know what to do with it and make mistakes with their own lives or make decisions that they would consider. To be immoral or that some people would end up being so successful and Independent, that inequality. Would increase in society, I simply disagree with all of that.

For people who aren't very successful in life and don't have the freedom that people who are successful. Do, we shouldn't tell them tough, you should've finished school or gotten a better education or whatever the reasons why they aren't successful in life. But we shouldn't say that people who have been successful in life should be forced to subsidize and take care of the people who. Aren't, what we should do is empower the people who haven't made it in life, to get the freedom to take care of themselves, so they can can be free to live their own lives as well.

Progressives have a tendency to label things a cut, when one person offers to increase the spending on something. By this amount and someone offers to increase the program by this amount of money but its less then the other person, they'll say the person who would increase the program by less, is cutting the program. Or when someone says they'll increase the funding by this program by this amount of money and then changes that position and says we'll increase increase the program by this amount, which is less then we. Originally proposed, that somehow thats a cut, its what I call Progressive logic or the lack of it, when two sides agree that we need to spend more on a program, even if one side is proposing to spend less then. The other side, just the fact that they would both spend more money on that program, is all the evidence that. You need to know that they would both increase the funding of the program and aren't trying to cut it. Well anyone whose not a Progressive can understand that.

Sunday, October 28, 2012

Ayn Rand on Russian communism on the Phil Donahue Show from 1979, saying that Russian Communists believed that people weren’t people. But collections of the state, subjected to whatever the state wanted them to do. The difference between authoritarianism and liberal democracy. With authoritarianism depending on what type of authoritarianism we are talking about, it’s all about the state. A big centralized government, where all power is centralized in one political party generally.

And the people are there not to live their lives, but to serve the state. And once they get out of line, decide to live their own lives, or speak out against the state, they do that at their own risk. And risk severe harm to not only them, but their families as well. Just one of many difference between living in an authoritarian state which is what Soviet Russia was, or living in a liberal democracy like the United States. In a liberal democracy and free society, people tend to control their own lives. And then have to deal with the consequences of their decisions for good and bad.

In a communist state, to use as an example, individuals don’t exist. It is all about the state and the state is the society. Meaning the big central government decides what everyone needs and what everyone can do and use and just about everything else. Everyone in the country, is there to serve the state and especially the Communist Party and communism. Not there to make the best out of life that they can for themselves and their families. If freedom scares you and you don’t think you would be able to manage your own life, trying doing time in jail, or prison. Or living in a communist society, because freedom won’t be something that you would ever have to deal with.

Saturday, October 27, 2012

Another words LASP or the Los Angeles Sex Police, I don't have any problem regulating the porn industry and. I would even take it further and legalize and regulate prostitution industry but actually forcing people to do things for their own good, is Big Government at its worse because its. Using Big Government to protect people from themselves.

Grover Norquist predicting that President Obama and Congress will once again punt on the Bush Tax Cuts. And to give them another two year extension, its time for the Washington to stop playing football on the Bush Tax Cuts and show some Leadership, of course thats easier said then done but if. They can just come to an agreement on Tax Reform, that in the short term we would eliminate most if not all Tax Loopholes and even reform things like the Home Mortgage Deduction, that it wouldn't. Apply to homes worth more then a million dollars and it wouldn't apply to second homes and we then lowered Tax Rates which would be beneficial to the economy across the board, including as. It relates to business, in exchange for eliminating most if not all Tax Loopholes, including Corporate Welfare, then we could then leave Tax Rates low across the board and then we need to reach. An agreement as it relates to spending and reforming the Federal Government.

President Kennedy, who is my number one political hero as a Liberal Democrat, was assassinated, because he was an anti-Communist. Who was opposed to Fidel Castro and the Communist Republic of Cuba. Thats why he was assassinated at least as it relates to Lee Oswald. And if there were other people involved, like the Italian Mafia, they were opposed to him because Attorney General Bobby Kennedy's opposition and War on Organized Crime. JFK, was seen as a threat and an enemy, to the both the Far-Left, meaning Communists, in and outside of America. And the Far-Right, for his support of civil rights, equality, helping people in need and I'm sure other reasons. And of course the Italian Mafia in America. Because President Kennedy, failed to remove Fidel Castro and his Communist Regime, who eliminated their casinos from Cuba.

These warped ideas, from both the Far-Left and the Libertarian-Right, that Jack Kennedy, was assassinated by the CIA, or perhaps the National Security Council, or Vice President Lyndon Johnson, are exactly that. Which is warped, with no real foundation behind any of those theories. Jack Kennedy, was President of the United States and was assassinated during the middle of the day during a parade in downtown Dallas, Texas. The only way you assassinate a man as powerful and well-protected as the President of the United States, is through private means. Someone who knows where the President is going to be and where he is. Who has a reason to do it and knows exactly what they probably be giving up. Lee Oswald and perhaps people who helped him, had that access and the tools and ability to carry out the assassination.

Friday, October 26, 2012

Just more evidence of why we need Pension Reform, including when it comes to Social Security, that empowers. And encourages Americans to put more money away for retirement and savings and putting more people back to work faster. We shouldn't taxing savings or retirement up to a certain percentage which would empower more people to put more money away.

Thursday, October 25, 2012

Dogs, are similar to humans in this sense, that they have to get to know you and trust that you aren't there to hurt them. Before they will open up to you and trust you and once you accomplish that and you know how to approach them, they'll love you. I have a hard time buying (and not because money is tight) that Cesar Milan abuses dogs or any other pets. Of course he could be an Oscar caliber actor on his show and that his show is nothing but an act. And that while he pretends to be this great animal psychologist on TV, in his free time he beats dogs and cats with a whip for the hell of it, or to take out on his anger at whatever is pissing off at the time. I just don't see that.

He reminds me of the great adolescent phycologist who works with lets say troubled urban high school students who grow up in rough neighborhoods. Where their father is not around and if their mother works at all she works two low-income jobs just to support her kids and doesn't have the time to look after them during the day. But this great teacher or psychologist who is probably a former Marine, or something comes in. And teaches these kids how to behave and get with the program. And how important school is to their future and all of that. Its hard to imagine someone like that as a bullshit artist. Who talks a great game in public, but in private is just as bad as the assholes that he has turned around made productive people out of.

Cesar Milan, at least to me, seems like that guy you want to have around. When your dog doesn't know how to behave, or has no interest in behaving and you've tried everything else that you can think of. And you're just desperate, so you go on national TV and bring your home problems to the public. (Talk about desperation) So you bring in the Dog Whisperer to teach your dog how to behave and become a responsible member of the family. How to respond to their parents and other family members. Respond to commands, how to behave on walks, even how to go to the bathroom and anything else. I have a hard time believing that someone like that who clearly loves dogs and has such great skill at training them, would in private be abusive to them and perhaps even criminal.

The current economic numbers aren't very good but the fact that they are rising and improving and that. The economy looks like it might be ready to breakout in 2013, might be all that President Obama needs to win reelection.

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Libertarianism to put it in a couple of sentences, is about the people having the right to live their own lives as. They see fit, as long as they aren't hurting any innocent people with what they are doing and that the Federal Government only has the Constitutional Authority to do what is laid out for them. In the 10th and 11th Amendments in the US Constitution.

Monday, October 22, 2012

What I get out of this video, is that we shouldn’t be around the bush. If we are really pissed at someone or see them as complete losers and don’t give a damn about what they think, we should simply just tell them. “Don’t beat around the bush, tell them what you really think”. I’m perfectly cool with that, the only thing is I tend to go out of my way not to be around people I see as complete assholes or morons. Call me crazy, but I don’t like hanging out with assholes or morons. I know more than I care to admit to and I tend to want to be at least a zip code away from them so I don’t have to admit that I actually know that person. Like if I’m ever under oath having to testify about their latest boneheaded screwup.

Now if I just happen to be around an asshole who thinks they are as big and great as Godzilla, even though a baby could step on them and they get in my face and we have a little argument, by all means I’ll more than defend myself especially verbally, if simply laughing at them and trying to move on doesn’t work. There are times that assholes need to know what they are, if anything to give them incentive not get into someone else’s face in the future and bring a squirt gun to a machine gun fight. And I’m talking about real machine guns with real bullets, not a water machine gun.

Insults obviously have their place in life and without them some people would have no idea about big of a loser or asshole they are. Because they would never get it anyway and need that light to go off in their head and to get the point that they have serious flaws that need to be addressed. My issue is how you go about insulting someone. Do you bring yourself down to the level of the asshole that you’re putting down, or do you actually put some thought into how you critique that person.

Do you tell the asshole,”holy shit you’re a fucking moron!” Or do you put some thought like, “I would call you a fucking moron, but that would be an insult to fucking morons”. And there was a similar line like that in this video. Also swearing, if you have to swear to put someone down, you’re probably not much better off than the person you’re putting down. I realize how popular cussing and swearing is today and I get that and use it myself, but mostly when I’m pissed or shocked about something. Something like “holy shit! The Washington Redskins actually won a game”. If you are familiar with 2012 Redskins, or the Redskins in recent years, you know winning is like a holiday for them. It doesn’t happen that often and sometimes they even go months without winning.

I like put downs or insults that come with thought. I mean if you were to call me an asshole, mother fucker, go down the line, the most you’ll get from me is a smirk, because I’m probably laughing about the brain cramp you just had coming up with that. If you’re going to call someone stupid, give them an example of how stupid they are. “When God was passing out the brains, it was your day off, so you didn’t get one. Or he passed on you, because he didn’t think you were worth the effort or would try to sell your own brain”. You want to put me down or impress me with an insult, then impress and put some real thought into what you are trying to say.

"A Path Toward Totalitarianism", I believe is a stretch but since 9/11, the US Government has become. More Statist, perhaps they would argue for our own good, that we have to have certain privacies and freedoms taken away from us, to protect us for our own good. Things like the Patriot Act, where the Federal Government can now look through what Americans read and who we hangout with. If they suspect us, not having to have to prove but suspect that we are hanging out with people, who the Federal Government view as terrorists. Indefinite Detention, where the US Government can detain people including Americans, indefinitely if they suspect us to be terrorists . Without a trial or any court hearing, which is I believe is clearly Unconstitutional, when Americans are detained in America, we have what's known as a speedy trial and have the ability to show. That the prosecution doesn't have enough evidence to show that we are guilty of what we have been charged with to use as an example. The last ten years the Federal Government has become more Statist towards our Civil Liberties and Individual Freedom and is a dangerous course, that we need to get off of.

It depends on which Mitt Romney you are talking about, the Mitt Romney of 15-20 years ago sounded like a. Big Government out of our wallets and bedrooms Republican, an Economic Conservative who didn't want Government interfering with peoples personal lives as well. The Economic Conservative is still there but the 2012 edition of Mitt Romney, is more Statist on Social Issues and would be an insult to me as a Liberal. To call the 2012 version of Mitt Romney a Liberal, I prefer to call him Flip Flopper instead.

Sunday, October 21, 2012

American Military strength is not about how much money we spend on our military or how many people we. Can kill but how effective we are in influencing the rest of the World, to make it as safe as possible, to make America as safe as possible from foreign threats.

If President Obama holds Ohio, he probably wins but he should be concentrating on holding North Carolina and Virginia as well. And hang onto Wisconsin, just to be safe because the Romney Campaign is looking at a non Ohio strategy to win the election.

Healthcare in America might be cheaper, if it only covered life and death emergencies and the rest of the things. Like checkups, medicine, that sorta thing that people use to stay or get healthy would be paid for out of pocket.

Thursday, October 18, 2012

If you listen to Robert Levy talk about Liberals and Conservatives, you would get the idea, that Liberals. Are believers in a high degree of Social Freedom, which we are we believe in a lot of Liberty on these issues but that Liberals are more Statist and Socialist when it comes to Economic Policy. Big believers in Centralize Power, high taxes and regulations, the Welfare State and so fourth, which is not true, people who have this ideology, would be Progressives, Socialists. Social Democrats, however you want to define this philosophy but people who believe in these things aren't Liberals but Progressives, Socialists, Social Democrats, people who would be Left of Center. In Canada or Europe and if you listen to Mr. Levy talk about Conservatives, you might get the idea that they are Economic Libertarians, sound Libertarian on Economic Policy but more Statist. On Social Issues and National Security, Mr. Levy is right about Economic Policy in talking about Conservatives but when I think of Conservatives, I think of someone like Barry Goldwater. Or his son Barry JR or Representative Jeff Flake whose carried on the Goldwater Conservative tradition in Congress out in Arizona. That Economic Freedom and Fiscal Conservatism. Are important but so is Social Freedom and Civil Liberties and having a strong defense that makes sense and that we ca afford as a country as well, that doesn't hurt us.

The differences between Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians are actually fairly small, if you look. At in a classical sense, which is what I do, I don't buy terms like "Modern Liberals and Conservatives", to me these people are Social Democrats/Progressives and Neoconservatives, people who. Are more Statist and Collectivists but in different ways, with Progressives mainly when it comes to Economic Policy but also when it comes to Public Health and even certain political speech. With Neoconservatives mainly as it relates to Social Freedom and National Security, that there's some type of "Moral Crisis", in the country and we need to limit Social Freedom. To end the crisis and that National Security concerns should always outweigh Civil Liberties and even the US Constitution. The main differences when it comes to real Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians, has to do with the role of the Federal Government, Liberals and Conservatives both believe in Limited Government. But Libertarians however believe in Small Government, that the Federal Government should really only be doing 4-5 things.

The main differences between Liberals and Conservatives, has to do with Foreign Policy and National Security. They both believe in a strong and efficient National Defense, thats based around our National Security and values but that it should be limited and that America can't police. The World, Liberals tend to be more diplomatic, Conservatives tend to be more hawkish but both are very careful about using our Armed Forces and when it comes to the economy. Liberals are more willing to regulate people they see as bad actors to use as an example, Conservatives. Tend to believe the regulation tends to hamper Economic Growth but basically Liberals and Conservatives have more in common, then we disagree on.

The War on Drugs, especially as it relates to marijuana, is a perfect example for why I don't believe. Most Americans are stupid, because we are waking up as a country to fact of how stupid this prohibition is.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

On paper anyway, Mitt Romney and the Republican Party should have the easier time in appealing to Libertarians. Because thats where Libertarians originally come from for the most part and Republicans have traditionally have supported things like Fiscal and Economic Conservatism and even. Social Conservatism in the classical sense, that they believe in conserving Social Freedom, Big Government out of our wallets and bedrooms, is a Republican phrase that Barry Goldwater came up. With, the problem with that, is thats not today's Republican Party, as much as they talk about Fiscal Conservatism, they want to spend hundred of billions of dollars more on National Defense, even. More money then the Defense Department wants to spend and they have no serious plan to deal with the debt and deficit, that gets those things under control, no plan for real Entitlement Reform. No plan for real Tax Reform, other then cutting taxes further and leaving in existing Tax Loopholes and they would leave the Defense Budget off the table when it comes to Deficit Reduction. And the GOP really should stand for the BGP, Big Government Party when it comes to Social Freedom, because todays GOP doesn't believe in Social Freedom, unless Americans are living the. Lives that Neoconservatives want them to live.

I could layout a strategy for how Mitt Romney could appeal to Libertarians, that would move the Republican Party. Back to where they use to be, that would bring Libertarians and Conservative Independents back to the party, the problem with that is that Mitt Romney is most famously known for. Flip flopping and for a strategy like this to work, he would've had to of start it two years ago and ran on it and basically kissed off Neoconservatives, unless he could convince them to vote for. Him because he the best shot at beating President Obama and instead of just run for real Conservative Republicans, the ones that still remain in the party, people like Representative Jeff Flake. Libertarians, as well as Conservative Independents, that would've been a winning strategy in 2011 and put him in position to win in 2012 but its way to late for that now in October, 2012, just a few weeks until the election.

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

We can't balance the budget in a year but 5-10 years, when we get solid Economic Growth again with falling. Unemployment, we can do that, if we ever figure out what we want the United States Government doing and then figure out how to pay for what we want the Federal Government to do, without. Borrowing to pay for it and once we do that, then we can eliminate or cut back on things we don't believe the Federal Government should be doing and what we believe the Feds should be doing. Less, for example we don't need to pay for the National Security of Developed Nations, that can afford to defend themselves, we need to either get our troops out of those countries or have those. Countries pay us for all of the defense we give them, Europe, Saudi Arabia, Japan and Korea. We don't need the Federal Government to run a Safety Net for a country of 320M people and that has fifty States, the States should be running their own versions of these programs, with the Feds. Giving them the resources to do so, as well as playing a watchdog to make sure that they are serving the people who are eligible for them and running these programs in an effective and efficient manner. And then we need a Tax Code that taxes everyone based on what they can afford to pay but is consistent with sustaining solid Economic Growth, these would be my ideas.

Well to be cynical for a minute, (not that I've never done that) if President Obama were serious about appealing to Libertarians ( and perhaps the Tea Party and Communists as well) this is what he would do.

President Obama would call for the elimination of the New Deal and our broader public safety net.

President Obama would say the 1964 Civil Rights Acts has outlived it's usefulness and call for repealing that and perhaps the same thing with the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the 1968 Fair Housing Law.

President Obama would say America should no longer be part of NATO and the United Nations. We're cutting off foreign aide, period.

President Obama would call for the elimination of the FBI and perhaps the entire U.S. Justice Department. As well as Education, Labor, Energy, EPA, etc.

President Obama would call for going back to the not so gold standard.

President Obama would say the War on Drugs is not only a failure but 12 year olds should be allowed to use cocaine, if they make that choice themselves.

President Obama would say that Americans are too stupid to elect our own U.S. Senators and that our legislatures with all their wisdom should elect our upper members of Congress for us.

And I could go on, but to not waste anyone's time (especially my own) I'll stop here, because you get the point and we all have better things to do.

If President Obama is serious about appealing to Libertarians and neutralizing some of the Gary Johnson vote, this is what he would do.

He would move to decriminalize marijuana, at least in this sense, that if States legalize it, the Federal Government would no longer enforce marijuana prohibition in States, that have already decided to legalize marijuana. That would help, but coming out in favor of legalizing marijuana and regulating it like alcohol, would be much better for Liberals such as myself and Libertarians. And then come out against the War on Drugs all together. That we should stop arresting people and sending them to prison, for their own good, even jail and prison is bad for them.

A defense policy that no longer defends developed nations around the World that can afford to defend themselves, Europe, Saudi Arabia, Japan and Korea. And use these saving to help pay. Down the debt and deficit and invest in special forces and operations, to concentrate on terrorists groups that would attack us.

Pickup on Gary Johnson's idea of block granting the safety net to the States, with resources to run those programs would be another idea. The problem with this strategy, is that it would be way to late to attempt now, because President Obama would end up doing what he's finally ready to go after Mitt Romney for, which is flip flopping. He would end up reversing course on several key positions, relating to the War on Drugs, Patriot Act, indefinite detention and marijuana as a whole. Now in 2012 it's too late for the President to do it now, but if he gets reelected and idea worth looking into in a second term.

If you're President Barack Obama running for reelection in 2012 spending your first four years not just trying to get America out of the Great Recession, but back to full recovery allowing for the economy to start growing strongly again and you're serious about appealing to Libertarians and so-called Left-Libertarians the Gary Johnson's of the world would your best opportunity here, you target issues where you yourself as a Progressive and moderate Liberal where you could have issues in common with Left-Libertarians. Like civil liberties, defense policy, foreign affairs, civil liberties. Instead of completely flip flopping on all your core issues and ideas that have gotten you to the White House in the first place.

You vote for Liberty by voting for candidates who believe in it and not voting for people who claim that Big Government. Is a problem but only speak out against Big Government, when it has something to do with the economy or religion but won't take stands on critical Social Issues and Civil Liberties, because they. Say the election is about the economy, another words if you believe in Liberty, don't vote for Neoconservatives or Progressives, because Neoconservatives will attack our Social Freedom and Progressives. Will go after our money and even what comes out of our mouths and in some cases even, what goes into our mouths.

Anyone whose pro-death penalty and I’m one of them, should be in favor of a long appeals process. To make sure that we get the right people, so to speak and not rush to put to death the wrong people. Not an appeals process that extends the process indefinitely, but that allows inmates and lawyers to bring new appeals, as long as they can bring new evidence that suggests that they may be innocent. So we are always executing the right people and not putting to death the wrong people.

That is the only way to make sure that the death penalty can be applied fairly. Putting the wrong person to death even by accident, whether you’re talking about manslaughter, or giving the wrong person the death penalty, is not a mistake that you can take back. I would be fine with a short appeals process without the death penalty. Because if the convicted murderers lawyers truly believe their client is innocent, they can still work on the case. And if they find evidence that proves their client is innocent, they can always present that evidence and open that case back up.

Every pro-death penalty person, especially if they consider themselves to be pro-life and pro-death penalty at the same time, should be in favor of a death penalty case like this. Because it makes their case for the death penalty better. That there isn’t a rush to put someone to death. Because they know if the person is guilty they’ll never leave prison anyway. And it gives opponents of the death penalty less evidence and a smaller case to use against the death penalty. And they would have a harder time saying that innocent people have been put to death because of the death penalty.

Whenever Americans lose some of their freedom, they really only have themselves to blame, by voting. For and reelecting politicians that pass new taxes and regulations on them and pass legislation that weakens our Constitutional Rights and Civil Liberties, things like the Patriot Act. Indefinite Detention, the so call War on Drugs and so fourth.

Friday, October 12, 2012

Deidre Hall, at least to me is the ultimate American Sweetheart. She’s gorgeous yes, but she is so freaking cute, baby-face adorable really and still is, now in her mid sixties. She doesn’t look much older now more than five years ago when I started watching the reruns of the soap operas as night. Because I had to work during the day. Everything she does, even the way she sits down and moves around or even talks on the phone and of course the way she speaks, makes me want to go, aw! Because she so sweet and has been one of the top soap actress’s, for what thirty years now. And has been on one of the top three soap operas ever since. Days of Our Lives, to go along with General Hospital, which is the best one of the bunch. And The Young and The Restless as well. And she’s just as sweet and funny in real life apparently, as she is on Days.

Here's a tip for all of you non political junkies, whenever one side is blaming the moderator or talking. About style over substance when it comes to a debate, thats a clue that they know their candidate lost the debate, which is exactly what the Obama Campaign was doing a couple of weeks ago. If Republicans thought Paul Ryan won tonight, they would've been talking about the great job that he did, the way they were talking about Mitt Romney a couple of weeks ago.

I have a real hard time believing that Ayn Rand would see either Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan as Libertarians. Today especially since both Governor Romney and Representative Ryan both believe in some form of a Safety Net, they would do it a lot different from Liberals or Progressives though. Apparently according to Thom Hartmannn, if you don't subscribe to Big Government Progressivism, you. Are selfish, thats basically what he says in this editorial, that anyone who believes that the wealthy shouldn't have to pay high taxes, you are selfish and part of some type of "Me Society". Mr. Hartmann goes from attacking Libertarianism when it comes to the economy, to speaking in favor of Socialism, thats its the job of government to take from the wealthy and spread. That money around, so its more evenly divided throughout the economy and not take from the rich and directly give it to the poor but have the Federal Government take that money from the rich. And use it to take care of the poor, not use it to empower the poor but literally take care of them, which is a classical Socialist notion, that there should be such thing, as wealthy, middle. Or poor people, that we are all equal and its the job of government to bring this about.

How to convince a Socialist to be Libertarian, first of all good luck, Socialists believe in what the State. Can do for the people with their money and Libertarians believe in what people can do for themselves with their own money and Libertarians also believe in Maximize Freedom across the board. That individuals have the right to live their own lives as they see fit, as long as they are not hurting innocent people with what they are doing, they should be free as long as they aren't. Hurting innocent peoples freedom, Socialists do believe in the State as far as improving peoples lives and making society as equal as possible but Socialists are pretty diverse on Social Issues. And depending on what type of Socialists you are talking about, people who I would call Leftist Statists, people who not only believe that the State has the responsibility to make sure that. All people are living as quality of a life as possible economically but that the State also has the responsibility to make sure that people are living as safe as possible, even if that means protecting. People from themselves and there are Socialist Liberals who are Socialist on Economic Policy but more Liberal-Libertarian on Social Issues, that government shouldn't try to protect people. From themselves, because they can't and its Undemocratic and Statist.

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

The only Cher song that I like and perhaps because of the candor in it. A song about regret and I think it was about her relationship with Sunny Bono, a great classic rock song. This performance was part of VH1's Divas series that they did annually in the late 1990s and early 2000s. No idea if they still do that, but Cher whatever you think of her certainly qualifies as a diva. Great voice, great personality, great body, certainly very entertaining. And she's lived a hell of a life and with comes with that comes a lot of regret. Things you wish you shouldn't have said and done and perhaps got caught up in the moment and took out your anger on someone. "If I Could Turn Back Time", again great song, but it is sort of like saying, "if only I owned a helicopter, I would be able to avoid rush hour traffic everyday." People aren't tested by what they would have changed if they could go back. You learn from mistakes and then move on. We are tested by how react and carry ourselves in the moment. The better we do in real-time, the fewer mistakes that we'll make as we move on.

Follow Me On Facebook

Ederik Schneider Online

FRS FreeState Now on Google+

About Me

I'm a full-time blogger about everything that I'm interested in. Mainly about current affairs, news, politics and history. But I think like most people I'm interested in a lot of different things. I kind of like to know what is going on around and everything that is important and interesting. Instead of spending my a lot of my free time trying to find out everything that is going on in the world of sports. Or who is the latest hot pop culture celebrity and why that person is in jail, or who they're current seeing and so-forth.

I like to know what is going on in sports. What are the good movies that are coming out and if people I like and respect will be in them. But I also want to know about what is going on in government and politics. Since we all have to pay for that whether we like it, or not. And it affects all of us whether we like that, or not. I want to know about everything that is important and interesting. Especially if it is interesting and one of the reasons I love being a blogger is that I get officially weigh in on things that I'm interested in and knowledgeable about.

I don't consider myself to be an expert on anything. But I'm knowledgable about everything that I comment on and blog about. Comes with being interested in a whole wide-range of subjects. And watching a lot of news sports and otherwise, as well as reading about those things. And watching a lot of documentaries. And another thing about being a blogger is that you hear how knowledgeable you're public thinks you are. Which I welcome, just as long as the public keeps their comments professional, respectful and on subject.